Debate: Should the loss of disability adjusted life years (DALY) define the focus of Global Hematology?: The case for prioritizing capacity building in anemia management and blood transfusion.

Setting priorities in healthcare is always contentious given the array of possible services at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of care, not to mention potential public health interventions. The central goals in global policy have been reducing inequity within and between countries, protecting vulnerable groups (particularly women and children) and reducing the major communicable diseases which have historically been a major burden in lower- and middle-income countries. Here limited relative and absolute spending on healthcare have spurred a series of initiatives in Global Health over the last 50 years which have led to significant gains in measures of morbidity and mortality. Against this background there remains the continuing question of how to adapt current medical practice in higher income countries for training and planning of services in lower- and middle-income countries. Here, the historical development of Global Health is outlined, and lessons drawn from the surveys of the global burden of disease and health economic analysis to understand how we can apply these principles to define Global Hematology. It remains likely that in lower-income countries effort should be concentrated on developing laboratory services and blood transfusion, to allow safe and effective support for the assessment of treatment of anemia, sickle cell disease, maternal and child health and urgent surgery and obstetric services. However, the principles of Global Health, could also be used for hematological malignancies to develop a framework for Global Hematology for all settings.